The Thing about Gas Prices

Okay, its like this. Today, whenever anyone mentions higher gas prices, a shill for the administration or the McCain campaign (that means any Republican talking head) goes into this lengthy rant about how oil prices are the result of market speculation and increased usage in India and China. In the process they give no weight to the effects of a prolonged middle east war that has not yeilded the increases in production and availability of oil to the world market that was promised at the outset of the Iraqi invasion ( does anyone remember the claims that il revenues would pay for the war and reconstruction?). The war has a direct influence on market speculation.

The right also ignores the obvious and continuing opportunity that our congress has to close the market speculators loophole (Enron Loophole) that allows energy companies to make money off speculation.

In the 2000 election, GW Bush and Dick Cheney criticized the Clinton Administration for its refusal to open the strategic reserves to the US market in order to provide summer relief from - what they called 'ridiculously high'- gas prices of about $1.70/gallon. Yet today, their administration refuses to even consider suspending new deposits into reserve each week.
If $1.70 a gallon was ridiculously high- what is $4/gal? Why do they refuse to do what they challenged Bill Clinton to do in 2000?

But hypocracy is not a trait held exclusively on the right. The lefties in congress could do better too.

Suppose Congress got together today with a bill to return the national speed limit to 55 mph. They could use the same rationale offered when this was done by Nixon in the 70's (environmental concerns- increased mpg/vehicle by changing behavior). I would also add a stiff penalty for violators and use that money for federal road improvement.

Next Congress should work aggressively to pass a bill to close the Enron Loophole- granted it would be vetoed by the Oilman, but it would cause both sides to show their hands.

Tax incentives should be extended for alternative fuel vehicle and hybrid purchase. Similar incentives should be offered for the development of same- including development of any passenger vehicle that can demonstrate mpg on the + side of 50 mpg in real world conditions.

And- as long as we are dreaming- suppose Congress pretended that they actually exist to govern and not simply to get reelected. Might they then actually work together to find solutions to our problems- particularly in matters like reduction of oil dependency.

If the likes of Joe Scarborrough can say that Jimmy Carter was right on this issue- wouldn't you think our elected officials could pretend they share a common purpose?

Tom Brokaw -Temporary Moderator for Meet the Press

Earlier this week NBC announced that retired News Anchor- Tom Brokaw would fill in as Temporary Moderator for Meet the Press through the elections later this year.

I had predicted this move. Brokaw is the only person in the whole NBC organization that has the instant gravitas to pull this off- if indeed it can be done at all. He also has the unique ability to Honor Russert without getting overly maudlin.

I have a hard time imagining this show will ever be the same- and perhaps in should evolve. However, Tom Brokaw will be an excellent steward of the program Russert himself called ' a sacred trust.'

Media takes on McCain's take on Obama's policies

This tells us that- at least on the McCain side- we are going to continue to see politics as usual.

Tim Russert- suddenly dead at 58 years old-

Political Junkies are feeling exactly what I am now. Coverage of Washington will never be the same. See the link for the story that is unfolding as I post this message.

There is still a sniff of something in the air...

which requires everything offered here to carry a huge caveat. But as long as the conversation is turning toward Vice presidential candidates I am going to offer, as I did yesterday, the opinion that Obama serves his needs -approaching the general election by staying on point regarding his message of change. This lends itself to choosing a Washington outsider.

The first level of outsiders to be considered would be Democratic Governors- each bringing exectutive experience and basic electoral benefits based on his or her state and qualifications.

There are 26 Democratic Governors currently serving. I do not know any of the personalities involved, so this analysis is based solely on advantages each brings to the electoral map.

I have narrowed it down to five potential VP nominees. They are listed here in no particular order.

Janet Napolotano is the sitting governor of Arizona- a red state. She was ranked by time Magazine in 2005 as one of the 'top 8 in '08', a group of women who could run and win- based on qualifications- for president in 2008. She is serving her second term in a traditionally red state. This pick would be bold as it would bring the electoral fight right to McCain's doorstep. 10 electors in her home state.

Kathleen Sabelius- Governor of Kansas- a red state- gave Democratic response to 2008 State of the Union Address. Sabelius is also regarded as a well qualified future presidential candidate- the VP spot could gain her name recognition. While Kansas itself has only 6 electors there could be carryover in the midwest as well as in other red states.

Bill Richardson of New Mexico, second term Governor of New Mexico- a red state. While this state only carries 5 electors there are carryover advantages for appeal to the hispanic community and for other westewern states. He has national experience as an ambassador under Bill Clinton. There would be some appeal to Catholic voters.

Edward Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania- a swing state. He was considered a potential candidate in his own right. He has been a vocal advocate for Hillary and has campaigned on her behalf. He has broad appeal in his own state and that could carry over into other blue collar states. 21 electors cannot be ignored.

Ted Strickland of Ohio- a swing state. Very popular in his own state he also would have some appeal to Clinton supporters. He is on 'everyone's' shortlist for many of the same reasons as Rendell. It is believed that Rendell has a stronger 'machine' behind him. Ohio carries 20 electors.

If these were the only five candidates he could consider- we would be in a good place.

Jennfier Granholm of Michigan is also very popular and was attractive to me until I discovered that she is Canadian born and as such ineligible. She is widely considered to be a potential Attorney General for any Democratic administration.

I want to let these digest but will commetn more later. Also for consideration are other non-washington types- there are a few of those which I will add to the list.

Finally?

It seems today that the final contests of the primary season will be decisive about the Democratic nominee. See the attached story by MSNBC for details about delegate counts for Barack Obama.

The question that remains is "What to do about Hillary?" She express 'willingness' to be a VP candidate, but does she really want it? She might bring a connectness to her supporters but there is no solid evidence of that. It is also not clear that she adds anything ideologically to the ticket that would not also have some possible negative backlash.

I believe that Obama ticket would benefit from an 'outsider' with executive experience (a governor). I also think that the governors on the Democratic side offer some interesting choices.

I am working on a blog about that at a future date.

Does anyone recall another White house with so many disgruntled former employees?

Scott McClellan, former press secretary to BW Bush has written a new book. In it he describes those difficult times he endured during the lie-fest leading up to the war in Iraq and his own disgust that he was lied to.

Now the Bushies are painting him as a character whose loyalty was always suspect and who cannot be trusted. - But we have heard that before.

She's no longer going to apologize

not that she ever did. In her warped and twisted viewpoint there is no real issue here. Obama's people are making an issue out of something that in a week she or her husband will claim she never said.

Keith Olbermann Does it again.

This special commentary (click above) sums up my disgust for Senator Clinton. It sums up why I and so many others are wanting her to get out of this race for the good of our country and for the good of her gender. She has revealed herself as a hollow,ambitious and heartless woman who is motivated only by her presumed right to be the next president of the United States.

I used to believe that there could be nothing worse than having GW Bush as our president. I am feeling now that such a feeling might be ill-informed.

Conservative court in California does its level best to distract the electorate from the failed policies of conservativism

Every four years or so some person or court does a stupid thing that is sure to demonize gays and spur the ignoramuses of the extreme right to action.

Once again, thanks to this decision we can count on the religious right and politicos of their ilk (Michelle Bachmann of MN) to avoid the real issues of the day -remember the wars and gas prices and the economy- by railing aganst 'activist judges.'

I am convinced, as evidenced by this decision, that we are now one step closer to our government getting out of the marriage business altogether. With another summer of commentary on the 'sanctity of marriage' vs the 'rights of individuals' , it will eventually need to be asked- What is the governmental interest in all of this?

The answer to that question needs to be more than about protecting individual rights. What is the societal good? If the answer is anything other than to strengthen community in the rearing and education of children or some other purpose for the greater good it would be incomplete.

The government, whether we like it or not, is not here to provide for our happiness. In our nation we are simply allowed the right to endeavor in that pursuit.

Our government has no business in our bedrooms. And if we start defining marriage as some means toward indivdual rights it is only a matter of time before some court somewhere agrees.
At that point, the argument will be that marriage is a matter for churches and not the state.
At that point some local jurisdiction will stop issuing marriage licenses altogether and tell people that if they want to marry they will need to go to a church to do that.

In order to ensure that all people are treated equal under the law the government will eliminate all rights and privileges associated with the institution.

Jesse Ventura for Senate?

the Minnesota Independence party is floating Jesse Ventura and former Senator Dean Barkley(I) as their possible candidates for the senate seat currently held by Norm Coleman.

The egomaniacal blowhard will probably run- but he is absolutely lazy and would not do our state any favors in this position. Further, an independent senator has little to no clout in the two party system.

One more reason to pay attention to the Minnesota race.

May Gas Prices for the past 8 years--

May 15, 2000-- $1.67/gal

Then we elected a Republican Oil Man to the White House in November of that year.
November 13th, 2000--- $1.70 /gal
May 14, 2001--- $1.88 /gal
September 10, 2001--- $1.69 /gal
October 15, 2001--- (people have blamed price on Sept. 11) $1.50 /gal
December 31, 2001--- (last lowest price) $1.28/ gal
May 13, 2002--- $1.58/gal
May 12, 2003--- $1.68/ gal
May 10, 2004--- $2.11/gal
January 10, 2005 (last time average was under $2.00) $1.99/ gal
May 9, 2005 $2.39/ gal
August 29, 2005 $2.80/ gal
September 5, 2005 (first time average is more than $3.00) $3.29/gal
May 15, 2006--- $3.15/ gal
September 11, 2006 (five years since september 11 attack) $2.85/ gal
May 14, 2007 $3.28/ gal
October 15, 2007 (last time average was under three dollars) $2.99/ gal
May 12, 2008 $3.94/ gal

$1.67 to 3.94 is a 236% increase. And people wonder why our economy is so bad off.

Either every calculation that this administration has made was completely off the mark, or they are not so incompetent as we might think. As a congressman Dick Cheney spoke vehemently about letting the market set the price for oil even to the extent of saying that if the market could bear $4.00 a gallon, than that is what the cost should be.

After 7.5 years in charge- they got their wish. And the oil companies are pocketing all of that money.

How is this possible?

MSNBC reports:

"The campaign is clearly running low on cash, although advisers would not say how much money — or how little — Mrs. Clinton currently has. The campaign had started April with over $10 million in unpaid debts, and Mrs. Clinton was vastly outspent by Senator Barack Obama in North Carolina and Indiana."

What makes it possible for one opponent to outspend the other without incurring debt while the other is lending to theiir individual campaign? It must be the case that one of the campaigns is raising significantly more money than the other. Fund raising, particularly among small donors is one of the benchmarks for a successful campaign.

The other, and a measurable standard by which we can assess a candidate's abilities as an administrator, would be their abilities to spend within their means (not incur debt).

What can our government do immediately to help us all with Gas Prices...

SAVE LIVES and reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Finally, an idea that makes sense.

Set aside election year politics and get on with undoing this mistake the Bush administration made to increase Oil Company revenues.

If You Change the Rules, I Win !!

This morning in the biggest butt-kissing session I have ever witnessed on television Joe Scarborrough interviewed Hillary Clinton. In that interview, when asked what argument she willmake going forward that she should get the Democratic Nomination.

She said, in essence that she will make the case that she can win the electoral votes. That argument will need to be dissected more carefully but suffice to say that she is claiming that she and not Barrack will win the states she won (California and New York for example). I think the claim is weak.

Her larger claim was that she has won more popular votes (this changes the rules as to how Michigan and Florida are counted) and that 'if the rules were the same as the rules followed by the Republican Party I would have already won the nomination".

That statement is only true if Florida and Michigan are counted. But forget the veracity- that standard doesn't apply when a Clinton is speaking.

Why would we want to follow the Republican rules?

These are not the rules the candidates agreed to at the beginning. It stretches my imagination and sense of right and my liberal sensibilities to continue to see everything I stand for be twisted beyond recognition in order to secured a nomination for one person who has claimed all along that she is somehow entitled to it.

First she was the inevitable candidate. Then she was the smarter candidate or the more experienced candidate- now she is the only candidate who can win (as long as we follow her rules- but will her rules change again?).

She seems to be the one who thinks she must win- and she will do anything to win. I find that dangerous. I find that divisive. I find it annoying.